Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
NAL, but if you read paragraphs 70-74, you get into the meat of the complaint. It's not so much for saying the girl was underage, but for saying what they did despite the fact they knew or should have known the girl was not underage, failing to mention the accounts of other people who challenged CTV's claims - which CTV should have had access to before their story was published - and for failing to disclose the fact that the CTV reporters who filed the story had personal relationships with the accusers.
|
My read of that is that 71-74 are the basis that CTV did not their job therefore defamed/libled him but the act of defamation/Libel was the the underage statement and not the whole story. No idea if that is the correct way to read the complaint though.